The above illustrates perfectly the problem with just assigning blame to the person or party in office. What jimmac fails to grasp is that we must endeavor to understand what happened and why, regardless of political expediency. I have tried to explain this, but he stubbornly clings to his ways. Such stubborn behavior reminds one of a small child, really. For example, jimmac is not interested in why we didn't find WMD in Iraq. All hew knows is Bush was in office. jimmac is not interested in understanding the roots of the financial crisis...he just knows Bush was in charge and "should have done something about it." This is such a childish, non-thinking and pardon me...low brow way of looking at the world.

As if that was not bad enough, he doesn't apply his own thinking across the board. For example, Obama is not at fault for our current economic and fiscal situation, despite the fact that he is currently in office. This is because jimmac views the world through a hyper-partisan lens. That lens, coupled with his simplistic and childish view that "whoever is in office gets the blame or credit" creates cognitive dissonance. As soon as he tries to reconcile these opposing views, his executive functions and ability to experience metacognition go away, resulting in only in his ego running the show.

This helps explain his reaction to those who seek to understand cause and effect first, and politics second. jimmac cannot comprehend this, so he immediately projects his hyper-partisan style of thinking onto others. Therefore, we get statements like "you're just saying that because you love Bush" or "Republicans all think X,Y, Z."

Sad, really.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Bush and Obama are both responsible for the current situation. Bush started it, and Obama was too pandering to the Republicans, the war hawks, and big business to fix it.

And every Republican candidate in the past election would have done at least as bad as Obama, if not worse. You can see it in their platform.

Maybe, however, there would have been a Liberal candidate that would have had more balls than Obama, gone against the Conservative grain and got things done, instead of trying to work with them and doing everything half-assed.

It's obvious no other Liberal candidate has a chance against Obama in 2012. So my only hope is that in his second term, Obama will step up to the fucking plate and not be such a fucking diplomatic pussy. Although this is unlikely to happen, it has a far greater chance of happening than Republican or Tea Party policies improving anything.

Bush and Obama are both responsible for the current situation. Bush started it, and Obama was too pandering to the Republicans, the war hawks, and big business to fix it.

And every Republican candidate in the past election would have done at least as bad as Obama, if not worse. You can see it in their platform.

Maybe, however, there would have been a Liberal candidate that would have had more balls than Obama, gone against the Conservative grain and got things done, instead of trying to work with them and doing everything half-assed.

It's obvious no other Liberal candidate has a chance against Obama in 2012. So my only hope is that in his second term, Obama will step up to the fucking plate and not be such a fucking diplomatic pussy. Although this is unlikely to happen, it has a far greater chance of happening than Republican or Tea Party policies improving anything.

If you want to assign blame, you need to go back to the start and in my opinion that begins with FDR. He laid the ground work of almost everything that we have been "tweaking" since. He's the one who confiscated gold and then devalued the currency relative to it. He's the one that threatened the Supreme Court with stacking it. He crafted many of the entitlements we've been adding to and attempting to somehow manipulate. He was the first truly tyrannical president that forced us to formalize the presidential term limits.

The above illustrates perfectly the problem with just assigning blame to the person or party in office. What jimmac fails to grasp is that we must endeavor to understand what happened and why, regardless of political expediency. I have tried to explain this, but he stubbornly clings to his ways. Such stubborn behavior reminds one of a small child, really. For example, jimmac is not interested in why we didn't find WMD in Iraq. All hew knows is Bush was in office. jimmac is not interested in understanding the roots of the financial crisis...he just knows Bush was in charge and "should have done something about it." This is such a childish, non-thinking and pardon me...low brow way of looking at the world.

As if that was not bad enough, he doesn't apply his own thinking across the board. For example, Obama is not at fault for our current economic and fiscal situation, despite the fact that he is currently in office. This is because jimmac views the world through a hyper-partisan lens. That lens, coupled with his simplistic and childish view that "whoever is in office gets the blame or credit" creates cognitive dissonance. As soon as he tries to reconcile these opposing views, his executive functions and ability to experience metacognition go away, resulting in only in his ego running the show.

This helps explain his reaction to those who seek to understand cause and effect first, and politics second. jimmac cannot comprehend this, so he immediately projects his hyper-partisan style of thinking onto others. Therefore, we get statements like "you're just saying that because you love Bush" or "Republicans all think X,Y, Z."

Sad, really.

Let's sum up here. SDW refuses to understand this is his opinion which is not shared by all or even most. He also has a blind eye when it comes to which party is in the Whitehouse. If it's a Democrat ( specifically Obama ) he's responsible for everything going wrong ( even stuff that happen before he was in office ). Also what he isn't repsonsible for another democrat that was in office 8 years before him is responsible and if it isn't all him another Democrat that was in office 29 years before is responsible.

Posted by trumptman :

Quote:

If you want to assign blame, you need to go back to the start and in my opinion that begins with FDR.

And if that isn't enough if he isn't totally repsonsible yet another Democrat is responsible that was in office 63 years before Obama gets the rest according to trumptman!

Oh! I'm going to bust a gut on this one!

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Jesus! And I'm partisan?

Rather than sad funnier than hell really!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Let's sum up here. SDW refuses to understand this is his opinion which is not shared by all or even most. He also has a blind eye when it comes to which party is in the Whitehouse. If it's a Democrat ( specifically Obama ) he's responsible for everything going wrong ( even stuff that happen before he was in office ). Also what he isn't repsonsible for another democrat that was in office 8 years before him is responsible and if it isn't all him another Democrat that was in office 29 years before is responsible.

I have not claimed Obama is responsible for "everything." I am not claimed he is responsible for things that happened before he was in office. What I am saying is that he is responsible for most of the CURRENT deficit, starting a 3rd war, failing to pursue policies that lead to growth, the disaster that is Obamacare, his arrogant/angry/aloof demeanor, being anti-business and telling fairy tales about "green collar jobs" while refusing to policies in place that can lead to energy independence. Oh, and don't forget the wasted, trillion-dollar slush fund we call the "stimulus" bill. That's what he's responsible for...things he did and has utterly failed to do. And as President, he shares at least some blame for the current economic situation. He's been President for 2.5 years. "It's Bush's fault" is wearing a bit thin.

Quote:

Posted by trumptman :

And if that isn't enough if he isn't totally repsonsible yet another Democrat is responsible that was in office 63 years before Obama gets the rest according to trumptman!

I don't know if I agree it started with FDR, but there is a point there about social spending and government dependance. Also, he clearly wasn't blaming Obama for what's going on. He was trying to get to the root cause of our problems, something you apparently have no interest in.

Quote:

Oh! I'm going to bust a gut on this one!

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Jesus! And I'm partisan?

Rather than sad funnier than hell really!

As MJ says, yes...we do.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I have not claimed Obama is responsible for "everything." I am not claimed he is responsible for things that happened before he was in office. What I am saying is that he is responsible for most of the CURRENT deficit, starting a 3rd war, failing to pursue policies that lead to growth, the disaster that is Obamacare, his arrogant/angry/aloof demeanor, being anti-business and telling fairy tales about "green collar jobs" while refusing to policies in place that can lead to energy independence. Oh, and don't forget the wasted, trillion-dollar slush fund we call the "stimulus" bill. That's what he's responsible for...things he did and has utterly failed to do. And as President, he shares at least some blame for the current economic situation. He's been President for 2.5 years. "It's Bush's fault" is wearing a bit thin.

I don't know if I agree it started with FDR, but there is a point there about social spending and government dependance. Also, he clearly wasn't blaming Obama for what's going on. He was trying to get to the root cause of our problems, something you apparently have no interest in.

As MJ says, yes...we do.

Quote:

I am interested in cause and effect first, and politics second.

I'm sure you think you are.

Where were you years ago when we were saying " There's no one at the wheel " etc.?

History can never wear thin if it's recent history SDW.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Ok. You don't remember all the things we said about Bush while he was in office. How he didn't seem to be exactly a model conservative or moreover he seem to not know what the hell he was doing. He seemed to care more about seeking revenge on Saddam than anything. And here we are or more to the point there we were at the end of his 8 years in office with a huge mess.

Now I've never thought this recession, downturn, or what ever label you want to put on it was something that anyone could solve in just a few years. It's not like any of the recessions we've experienced in our lives. More like something our parents or grandparents ( depending on how old you are ) experienced in the early 1930's.

You seem to be indicating that only Democrats are to blame for it's start. I think there's enough blame to go around to everybody.

Now if I were to take what you've said at face value I'd have to conclude that the Republicans have been extremely ineffective. The reason is that they've had the Whitehouse for 32 out of the last 63 years and in more recent times ( say oh since the Carter administration ) they've had it for ( measuring from 2008 approx. ) 20 out of 27 years! What happened? They've had ample time to fix things. They've had plenty of time to fix anything those evil democrats have done. So why are things so fucked up? Now you can say that part of that time congress and the senate have been contolled by the democrats but not all of it and they have had large blocks of time when the government had republicans controlling all three arms of government. So what happened?

If they have all the answers or are superior to democrats or even if you want to put the primary responsibility on them for the bad times we are experiencing the numbers just don't add up.

What we need is for both sides to work together. As painful as that might be to get out of this situation that we've created for ourselves that's what we have to do. However what I'm seeing from the conservative side is that they are only interested in winning. That's their primary goal. Get Obama out of office at any cost. It doesn't matter who runs in 2012 as long as they're the one who'll beat Obama. Helping the american people is secondary.

In my mind though one thing is certain. This downturn isn't something that could be fixed in just a few years by anyone. That's the hard truth. We came very close to real hard times. Not just businesses folding but bread lines etc. And if this recovery isn't handled correctly we could still end up there. The effects of the Great Depression lasted for more than a decade. What makes anyone think this was something that could be fixed in 3 or 4 years? I'm thinking we may see an end to this ( for the most part as some of the effects will be with us for a lifetime ) around maybe 2014. That's pretty quick considering what happened. And it could be longer if someone gets in there after the next election and does something stupid.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Ok. You don't remember all the things we said about Bush while he was in office. How he didn't seem to be exactly a model conservative or moreover he seem to not know what the hell he was doing. He seemed to care more about seeking revenge on Saddam than anything. And here we are or more to the point there we were at the end of his 8 years in office with a huge mess.

Actually I've shown my memory was pretty darn good about what was said during those times. I can tell you exactly what you said and show how people were critical of Bush but that the bar has completely moved when compared to Obama.

First Bush had a very early recession, it had already started when he entered office. The tech bubble was popping right as he was inaugurated. We all remember the endless (selective) recounts and the Supreme Court decision that ended them. Then Jeffords switched parties and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Bush decided to very much cut a middle ground. He got his tax cuts passed through as a recession fighting measure including a 50-50 vote in the Senate broken by the vote of the Vice President. The vote was so close that reconciliation was used and that was why, per the Byrd rule the tax cuts could only last ten years.

The economy went into recession but quickly came back out. We had 9/11 occur and went to war with the vote of Congress. Bush also pressed for and had passed No Child Left Behind, overseen in the Senate by Ted Kennedy and the Medicare Part D. We went from surpluses to deficits of 200-250 billion a year. There were jobs galore but you specifically called them McJobs and declared that every had to have three of them to get by.

Bush was reelected and had in 2002 and 2004 managed to improve the fortunes of his party both times in both the Senate and House bucking historical trends. The left began to lose their minds at losing so much and were more than willing to attempt to out conservative conservatives in an attempt to get elected. There was also some rot on the vine. There was a string of ethical lapses that helped damage the brand. Democrats in 2006 ran on cleaning up ethics, instituting PAYGO to get rid of deficits and were elected by claiming conservatives were no longer good conservatives and they would actually be better than them at fiscal responsibility.

The yearly deficits instantly went up to $400 billion a year starting in 2006. Obama won his parties nomination and the Republicans ran John McCain who was not an inspiring nor especially conservative candidate. Obama ran on promising a small tax cut, promised to end the war and bring the savings from it home to address fiscal matters aka a peace dividend. He promised health care reform without a mandate (a point he specifically used to beat Clinton with) and he promised to get our fiscal house in order while improving the economy.

We have three official wars, more unofficial war powers, trillion dollar deficits and a stimulus that was a political payback rather than building infrastructure.

Quote:

Now I've never thought this recession, downturn, or what ever label you want to put on it was something that anyone could solve in just a few years. It's not like any of the recessions we've experienced in our lives. More like something our parents or grandparents ( depending on how old you are ) experienced in the early 1930's.

This recession is not unique but did have more to work through in terms of reallocating resources because housing and construction had become such a bubble. The government has not attempted to allow these bubbles to properly deflate and to let the economy reallocate the resources. It has spent billions attempting to reinflate the bubble with massive cash grants for buying housing and cash for clunkers as examples. This stops the economy from healing itself. Also multiple bills, all unread and thousands of pages long have created what amounts to a hiring strike as businesses and others cannot tell what is going on and do not act on uncertainty. Will they be able to get a line of credit? No one knows because no one knows or understands the outcome of the financial reform bill. The same is true for health care. So spending trillions to stop the economy from reconfiguring itself and passing thousand page unread and unknown bills is what has created this prolonged recession rather than letting the economy recover. There is all the belief that government borrowing and spending is somehow different and better than private spending and does not crowd it out of the marketplace. This clearly is wrong on several levels.

Quote:

You seem to be indicating that only Democrats are to blame for it's start. I think there's enough blame to go around to everybody.

Economic cycles do happen and when Bush had his to address, he did. He did not do it in a fiscally conservative enough manner for all Republicans, myself included but he did address it. The economy righted itself. Bush had to face reelection in 2004 having dealt with a bubble popping as he was entering office. He did address it and thus was reelected. He could not have, nor did he claim that it was impossible to address due to Clinton having been in office for eight years. Likewise the War on Terror could be viewed much the same. We had been lobbing things at Iraq, dealing with terrorism and dealing with specific leaders and countries in the Middle East for decades before Bush was elected. He couldn't declare a lack of resolve to address or attempt to fix the matter because of the prior time-frame.

Quote:

Now if I were to take what you've said at face value I'd have to conclude that the Republicans have been extremely ineffective. The reason is that they've had the Whitehouse for 32 out of the last 63 years and in more recent times ( say oh since the Carter administration ) they've had it for ( measuring from 2008 approx. ) 20 out of 27 years! What happened? They've had ample time to fix things. They've had plenty of time to fix anything those evil democrats have done. So why are things so fucked up? Now you can say that part of that time congress and the senate have been contolled by the democrats but not all of it and they have had large blocks of time when the government had republicans controlling all three arms of government. So what happened?

Part of it is pretty simple. Having the presidency isn't the same as having Congress. The majority of that time we not only had a Democratic Congress, it was profoundly majority Democrat. Republicans did not control the House until 1994 for the first time ending over 40 years of Democratic control there. They did not have large blocks of time when they controlled all three blocks of government. They never controlled the House under Nixon, Ford or Bush I. They had control of the House for six years under Bush II and control of the Senate for 4 years.

The third arm, which I'm hoping you mean as the Judiciary, is not very conservative. Republican presidents did not hold the house as I mentioned and often had either the slimmest of majorities in the Senate or none at all which meant a very hidden or moderate ideological candidate. Bush I gave us Clarence Thomas when there was a Senate majority (and we all remember how those confirmation hearings went.) The second nomination was David Souter who ended up voting with the liberal wing of the court.

Here is what Wikipedia notes on Reagan and judiciary.

During his 1980 campaign, Reagan pledged that, if given the opportunity, he would appoint the first female Supreme Court Justice.[232] That opportunity came in his first year in office when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart. In his second term, Reagan elevated William Rehnquist to succeed Warren Burger as Chief Justice, and named Antonin Scalia to fill the vacant seat. Reagan nominated conservative jurist Robert Bork to the high court in 1987. Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts, strongly condemned Bork, and great controversy ensued.[233] Bork's nomination was rejected 5842.[234] Reagan then nominated Douglas Ginsburg, but Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration after coming under fire for his cannabis use.[235] Anthony Kennedy was eventually confirmed in his place.[236] Along with his three Supreme Court appointments, Reagan appointed 83 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 290 judges to the United States district courts. His total of 376 appointments is the most by any president.[citation needed]

Reagan also nominated Vaughn R. Walker, who would later be revealed to be the earliest known homosexual federal judge,[237] to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. However, the nomination stalled in the Senate, and Walker was not confirmed until he was renominated by Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush.[238]

That is a man who won 49 states batting .500 on nominees.

Quote:

If they have all the answers or are superior to democrats or even if you want to put the primary responsibility on them for the bad times we are experiencing the numbers just don't add up.

The numbers do add up. Republicans have held limited and often fragmented power and when they do, have to engage in a moderate agenda often with the media going immediately to war with them due to bias.

Quote:

What we need is for both sides to work together. As painful as that might be to get out of this situation that we've created for ourselves that's what we have to do. However what I'm seeing from the conservative side is that they are only interested in winning. That's their primary goal. Get Obama out of office at any cost. It doesn't matter who runs in 2012 as long as they're the one who'll beat Obama. Helping the american people is secondary.

There's no side to fiscal responsibility. The numbers are becoming bad enough now that we will either confront it or decline.

I've said Boomers will choose decline and that will be true regardless of party.

Quote:

In my mind though one thing is certain. This downturn isn't something that could be fixed in just a few years by anyone. That's the hard truth. We came very close to real hard times. Not just businesses folding but bread lines etc. And if this recovery isn't handled correctly we could still end up there. The effects of the Great Depression lasted for more than a decade. What makes anyone think this was something that could be fixed in 3 or 4 years? I'm thinking we may see an end to this ( for the most part as some of the effects will be with us for a lifetime ) around maybe 2014. That's pretty quick considering what happened. And it could be longer if someone gets in there after the next election and does something stupid.

The economy could quickly get back on track. Large segments of housing are very close to being sorted through already but the uncertainty now is again, being created by government, not business. There is also the matter of currency destruction, possible bond downgrades due to the government not being able to stop spending, attempts to hold on rather than expand when crony-capitalism is more prevalent due to Obama, etc

Ok. You don't remember all the things we said about Bush while he was in office.

Define "we."

Quote:

How he didn't seem to be exactly a model conservative

Pretty sure I said that. You claimed it was an excuse.

Quote:

or moreover he seem to not know what the hell he was doing. He seemed to care more about seeking revenge on Saddam than anything. And here we are or more to the point there we were at the end of his 8 years in office with a huge mess.

This is simply your interpretation and view. I think he handled the 2001 downturn and 9/11 very well. The results bear that out.

Quote:

Now I've never thought this recession, downturn, or what ever label you want to put on it was something that anyone could solve in just a few years. It's not like any of the recessions we've experienced in our lives. More like something our parents or grandparents ( depending on how old you are ) experienced in the early 1930's.

I think we could have been well on our way to recovery with the right policies. Has we "spent" a trillion dollars on tax reform for example, we'd be in better shape. I don't expect Obama to instantly fix things. But this issue is that he's been in office 2.5 years and only made things much, much worse. This is supported by data. They predicted unemployment would peak at 8%. It's now back up to 9.1%. The deficit is 4 times higher. We're in a third war, this one w/o congressional approval. Now as I said, Obama cannot be blamed for everything. But he can be blamed for his own actions. This is a good time to bring up the point about cause and effect vs. politics. Had Obama instituted policies I thought were right and things STILL weren't any better, I'd agree that he needs more time. But that's not the case. I don't care for him personally, but it's his policies I'm primarily concerned about.

Quote:

You seem to be indicating that only Democrats are to blame for it's start. I think there's enough blame to go around to everybody.

This is what is so frustrating with you. I've said exactly that several times...there is plenty of blame to go around for everybody. You, however, are putting the blame on Bush. Allow me to remind you:

Quote:

or moreover he seem to not know what the hell he was doing. He seemed to care more about seeking revenge on Saddam than anything. And here we are or more to the point there we were at the end of his 8 years in office with a huge mess.

Quote:

Now if I were to take what you've said at face value I'd have to conclude that the Republicans have been extremely ineffective. The reason is that they've had the Whitehouse for 32 out of the last 63 years and in more recent times ( say oh since the Carter administration ) they've had it for ( measuring from 2008 approx. ) 20 out of 27 years! What happened? They've had ample time to fix things. They've had plenty of time to fix anything those evil democrats have done. So why are things so fucked up? Now you can say that part of that time congress and the senate have been contolled by the democrats but not all of it and they have had large blocks of time when the government had republicans controlling all three arms of government. So what happened?

That's just a really odd way of looking at things. During those time periods there were many ups and downs. Some of this was the natural business cycle, but a lot of it was also policy-driven. I suppose I'm just different. I'm really not interested in adding up which party was in power more in the last 100 years and then making a broad and subjective judgment about who is "better." It's just a rhetorical and academic exercise. I'd much rather talk about the POLICIES and EVENTS that led to certain outcomes. For example:

The tech boom of the 90s led to great econmomic growth

Tax cuts in general have lead to economic growth

Direct government spending has clearly not aided the economy (stimulus)

Quote:

If they have all the answers or are superior to democrats or even if you want to put the primary responsibility on them for the bad times we are experiencing the numbers just don't add up.

I've never claimed Republicans have all the answers, nor do I put the blame on Democrats for "all the bad times." I do think that Democrats have pursued policies since the mid 1960s that have not benefited us economically for the most part. This is not because they have a "D" next to their names. It's because they favor certain policies that are clearly not effective nor in line with Constitutional principles. When Republicans do the same, I call them on it. For example, the GOP allow ridiculous spending levels in the middle part of the decade. Bush 41 signed a tax increase, etc.

Quote:

What we need is for both sides to work together. As painful as that might be to get out of this situation that we've created for ourselves that's what we have to do. However what I'm seeing from the conservative side is that they are only interested in winning. That's their primary goal. Get Obama out of office at any cost. It doesn't matter who runs in 2012 as long as they're the one who'll beat Obama. Helping the american people is secondary.

While I don't agree that they are "only concerned with winning," I think you perceive it that way because Republicans don't think Obama can lead us out of this situation. He's helping to make it worse. That's what the election is really about.

And with regard to "winning," Democrats have a long history of keeping people dependent on government to maintain their political base. Also, the Anthony Weiner story is a good example of Democrats not resigning. If a Republican did that, they'd be run out of town on a rail.

Quote:

In my mind though one thing is certain. This downturn isn't something that could be fixed in just a few years by anyone. That's the hard truth. We came very close to real hard times. Not just businesses folding but bread lines etc.

We didn't come close to bread lines and we're unlikely to again.

Quote:

And if this recovery isn't handled correctly we could still end up there.

Possibly, which brings up how it's being handled right now. We're pumping money into the economy by the trillions instead of changing the fundamentals. What we need is not trillion dollar stimulus bills and boots on the throats of oil companies and three wars. We need real tax and spending reform.

Quote:

The effects of the Great Depression lasted for more than a decade. What makes anyone think this was something that could be fixed in 3 or 4 years? I'm thinking we may see an end to this ( for the most part as some of the effects will be with us for a lifetime ) around maybe 2014. That's pretty quick considering what happened. And it could be longer if someone gets in there after the next election and does something stupid.

The issue I see with this statement is that it reinforces your partisan views. You're buying into the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and "things are worse than we thought" lines. It supports the narrative that "no one could fix this right away, so it's not Obama's fault."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Trump, you make some excellent points there, but these two really stood out:

Re: Bush

Quote:

He could not have, nor did he claim that it was impossible to address due to Clinton having been in office for eight years. Likewise the War on Terror could be viewed much the same. We had been lobbing things at Iraq, dealing with terrorism and dealing with specific leaders and countries in the Middle East for decades before Bush was elected. He couldn't declare a lack of resolve to address or attempt to fix the matter because of the prior time-frame.

This is really what jimmac is arguing...that we can't address problems now because of the prior 8 years.

Re: Control of government

Quote:

Part of it is pretty simple. Having the presidency isn't the same as having Congress. The majority of that time we not only had a Democratic Congress, it was profoundly majority Democrat. Republicans did not control the House until 1994 for the first time ending over 40 years of Democratic control there. They did not have large blocks of time when they controlled all three blocks of government. They never controlled the House under Nixon, Ford or Bush I. They had control of the House for six years under Bush II and control of the Senate for 4 years.

I've already stated that I prefer to look at policy first and politics second, but this is a good point as well. Not only is jimmac looking at things in what I think is sort of a shallow and silly way, he's using incorrect facts to do it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The issue I see with this statement is that it reinforces your partisan views. You're buying into the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and "things are worse than we thought" lines. It supports the narrative that "no one could fix this right away, so it's not Obama's fault."

Actually I agree with the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" characterization. But here is the more interesting point to be made: He makes the statement that "The effects of the Great Depression lasted for more than a decade." True. But he, typically, fails to recognize that it was not the economic collapse itself that caused this prolonged depression but, rather, the economic policy response of both Hoover and FDR (Hoover-worse).

The parallels in this most recent time are somewhat astounding. Bush = Hoover. Obama = FDR.

Today it wasn't so much the economic "crash" itself but, rather the economic policy response of both Bush and Obama (Bush-worse) and Bernanke.

Everyone claims it was massive government deregulation and laissez faire economic policy by the previous Republican president (Hoover and Bush) made things worse and that the new Democratic president (FDR and Obama) "saved capitalism from itself." Nothing could be further from the truth.

While the parallels are not 100% the same they are frighteningly similar.

As Mark Twain once said "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme"...these two events rhyme a lot.

And the answer is that the Keynesian response (by Hoover, Bush, FDR and Obama) in both cases have made things much worse. Hoover and FDR took a stock market crash and recession (which began before the crash) and turned it into a decade (or more) long depression.

For a historical comparison to another economic policy response, look at the depression of 1920-1921:

- unemployment jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent
- GNP declined 17 percent
- Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. But would later try his approach after the 1929 stock market crash.
- Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922.
- Tax rates were slashed for all income groups.
- The national debt was reduced by one-third.
- The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."

The results? Anarchy? Chaos? People eating their young? The rich eating the poor? Cats and dogs living together?

By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

Actually I agree with the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" characterization. But here is the more interesting point to be made: He makes the statement that "The effects of the Great Depression lasted for more than a decade." True. But he, typically, fails to recognize that it was not the economic collapse itself that caused this prolonged depression but, rather, the economic policy response of both Hoover and FDR (Hoover-worse).

The parallels in this most recent time are somewhat astounding. Bush = Hoover. Obama = FDR.

Today it wasn't so much the economic "crash" itself but, rather the economic policy response of both Bush and Obama (Bush-worse) and Bernanke.

Everyone claims it was massive government deregulation and laissez faire economic policy by the previous Republican president (Hoover and Bush) made things worse and that the new Democratic president (FDR and Obama) "saved capitalism from itself." Nothing could be further from the truth.

While the parallels are not 100% the same they are frighteningly similar.

As Mark Twain once said "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme"...these two events rhyme a lot.

And the answer is that the Keynesian response (by Hoover, Bush, FDR and Obama) in both cases have made things much worse. Hoover and FDR took a stock market crash and recession (which began before the crash) and turned it into a decade (or more) long depression.

For a historical comparison to another economic policy response, look at the depression of 1920-1921:

- unemployment jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent
- GNP declined 17 percent
- Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. But would later try his approach after the 1929 stock market crash.
- Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922.
- Tax rates were slashed for all income groups.
- The national debt was reduced by one-third.
- The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."

The results? Anarchy? Chaos? People eating their young? The rich eating the poor? Cats and dogs living together?

By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

Please take your facts and go to another forum, they are not wanted here. This is the personal attacks and character smearing forum. You are hereby put on notice, any more factual input will be met with a solid wall of messenger shooting and character assassination.

The above was sarcasm, I loved your post. It is always good to see information instead of hand waving. Thumbs up.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Please take your facts and go to another forum, they are not wanted here. This is the personal attacks and character smearing forum. You are hereby put on notice, any more factual input will be met with a solid wall of messenger shooting and character assassination.

The above was sarcasm, I loved your post. It is always good to see information instead of hand waving. Thumbs up.

[sarcasm]

But Noah, everyone knows Bush was a disaster. He wrecked our economy, cut taxes for the wealthy, started wars, refused to help people during Katrina, told Cindy Sheehan to get out of his office, embarrassed the country, and enriched his Big Oil buddies while Darth Cheney secretly planned world domination.

You don't expect Obama to fix this is only a few years, do you?

[/sarcasm]

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

This is simply your interpretation and view. I think he handled the 2001 downturn and 9/11 very well. The results bear that out.

I think we could have been well on our way to recovery with the right policies. Has we "spent" a trillion dollars on tax reform for example, we'd be in better shape. I don't expect Obama to instantly fix things. But this issue is that he's been in office 2.5 years and only made things much, much worse. This is supported by data. They predicted unemployment would peak at 8%. It's now back up to 9.1%. The deficit is 4 times higher. We're in a third war, this one w/o congressional approval. Now as I said, Obama cannot be blamed for everything. But he can be blamed for his own actions. This is a good time to bring up the point about cause and effect vs. politics. Had Obama instituted policies I thought were right and things STILL weren't any better, I'd agree that he needs more time. But that's not the case. I don't care for him personally, but it's his policies I'm primarily concerned about.

This is what is so frustrating with you. I've said exactly that several times...there is plenty of blame to go around for everybody. You, however, are putting the blame on Bush. Allow me to remind you:

That's just a really odd way of looking at things. During those time periods there were many ups and downs. Some of this was the natural business cycle, but a lot of it was also policy-driven. I suppose I'm just different. I'm really not interested in adding up which party was in power more in the last 100 years and then making a broad and subjective judgment about who is "better." It's just a rhetorical and academic exercise. I'd much rather talk about the POLICIES and EVENTS that led to certain outcomes. For example:

The tech boom of the 90s led to great econmomic growth

Tax cuts in general have lead to economic growth

Direct government spending has clearly not aided the economy (stimulus)

I've never claimed Republicans have all the answers, nor do I put the blame on Democrats for "all the bad times." I do think that Democrats have pursued policies since the mid 1960s that have not benefited us economically for the most part. This is not because they have a "D" next to their names. It's because they favor certain policies that are clearly not effective nor in line with Constitutional principles. When Republicans do the same, I call them on it. For example, the GOP allow ridiculous spending levels in the middle part of the decade. Bush 41 signed a tax increase, etc.

While I don't agree that they are "only concerned with winning," I think you perceive it that way because Republicans don't think Obama can lead us out of this situation. He's helping to make it worse. That's what the election is really about.

And with regard to "winning," Democrats have a long history of keeping people dependent on government to maintain their political base. Also, the Anthony Weiner story is a good example of Democrats not resigning. If a Republican did that, they'd be run out of town on a rail.

We didn't come close to bread lines and we're unlikely to again.

Possibly, which brings up how it's being handled right now. We're pumping money into the economy by the trillions instead of changing the fundamentals. What we need is not trillion dollar stimulus bills and boots on the throats of oil companies and three wars. We need real tax and spending reform.

The issue I see with this statement is that it reinforces your partisan views. You're buying into the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and "things are worse than we thought" lines. It supports the narrative that "no one could fix this right away, so it's not Obama's fault."

Quote:

Define "we."

Anyone who wasn't Bush apologist who was talking to you at the time.

Quote:

The issue I see with this statement is that it reinforces your partisan views. You're buying into the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and "things are worse than we thought" lines. It supports the narrative that "no one could fix this right away, so it's not Obama's fault."

If it had been McCain in office he wouldn't have solved it in this amount of time either and we'd raging on him. SDW if you think this is just your run of the mill recession that can be solved in just a few years you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

So tell me do you really think this could have been fixed in a short amount of time? Tell me so I can have a good laugh.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

If it had been McCain in office he wouldn't have solved it in this amount of time either and we'd raging on him. SDW if you think this is just your run of the mill recession that can be solved in just a few years you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

So tell me do you really think this could have been fixed in a short amount of time? Tell me so I can have a good laugh.

Not what he said at all. He did say that things could be better than they are currently though.

This part specifically shows you were not reading what he wrote:

I think we could have been well on our way to recovery with the right policies. Has we "spent" a trillion dollars on tax reform for example, we'd be in better shape. I don't expect Obama to instantly fix things. But this issue is that he's been in office 2.5 years and only made things much, much worse. This is supported by data. They predicted unemployment would peak at 8%. It's now back up to 9.1%. The deficit is 4 times higher. We're in a third war, this one w/o congressional approval. Now as I said, Obama cannot be blamed for everything. But he can be blamed for his own actions. This is a good time to bring up the point about cause and effect vs. politics. Had Obama instituted policies I thought were right and things STILL weren't any better, I'd agree that he needs more time. But that's not the case. I don't care for him personally, but it's his policies I'm primarily concerned about.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Anyone that actually reads what I post knows I've criticized Bush many times for a variety of reasons. We've actually had this discussion--ABOUT those criticisms time and time again.

Quote:

If it had been McCain in office he wouldn't have solved it in this amount of time either

Actually, none of us knows how he would have "fixed things." What we can be reasonably sure of is that wouldn't have made things 500% worse.

Quote:

and we'd raging on him. SDW if you think this is just your run of the mill recession that can be solved in just a few years you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

So tell me do you really think this could have been fixed in a short amount of time? Tell me so I can have a good laugh.

Ahh, the strawman wrapped in an insult. Classic jimmac. I've never claimed the recession was "run of the mill" nor have I claimed it could be solved in a short period of time. Where do you get this stuff? What I have said is that Obama has objectively and unquestionably made things worse. Let's run the list of FACTS one more time. Since taking office in 2009, Obama has:

--Quadrupled the annual deficit
--Added $4 trillion plus to the overall debt
--Failed to demand a budget be passed at all from his party
--Rammed through a nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan.
--Signed Obamacare, which will cost us hundreds of billions.
--Presided over unemployment going up about 20% of the total.
--Pursued money-printing policies that devalued the dollar.
--Created uncertainty and fear in business with Obamacare mandates and his indication that he will not extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy any longer.

That is just a cursory list. jimmac, no one expects "this" to be "fixed" overnight. No one expects Obama to work miracles. But have we even BEGUN to move in the right direction? I don't see how anyone who looks at the above facts can conclude we have. And that's only in the area of economic and fiscal policy. He's also started another war (with a fourth already underway in Yemen), hung Israel out to dry, refused to pursue energy independence, portrayed the US as weak while traveling abroad, and blatantly violated the War Powers Resolution. The only thing he's done well this far--and I mean the only thing, is kill bin Laden. And for that, he did an awesome job at taking all the credit. See below in comparison with the past President.

Excerpts from Bush's post-Saddam capture speech:

Quote:

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

Excerpts from Obama's bin Laden speech:

Quote:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

Worst. President. Ever.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

That piece of personal financial advice comes from the 44th President of the United States.

Quote:

The president said his grandmother, who worked her way up from a secretary to a vice president of a regional bank in Kansas, told him: "Save a little bit out of whatever you're earning. And the magic of compound interest applies."

Quote:

He talked about how consumers need to have fiscal discipline, and save from each paycheck

Quote:

Obama said that he and Michelle have always tried to heed his grandmother's financial advice to save -- "and not always successfully I might add."

Quote:

He said his grandmother's financial advice works for the country, too.

Anyone that actually reads what I post knows I've criticized Bush many times for a variety of reasons. We've actually had this discussion--ABOUT those criticisms time and time again.

Actually, none of us knows how he would have "fixed things." What we can be reasonably sure of is that wouldn't have made things 500% worse.

Ahh, the strawman wrapped in an insult. Classic jimmac. I've never claimed the recession was "run of the mill" nor have I claimed it could be solved in a short period of time. Where do you get this stuff? What I have said is that Obama has objectively and unquestionably made things worse. Let's run the list of FACTS one more time. Since taking office in 2009, Obama has:

--Quadrupled the annual deficit
--Added $4 trillion plus to the overall debt
--Failed to demand a budget be passed at all from his party
--Rammed through a nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan.
--Signed Obamacare, which will cost us hundreds of billions.
--Presided over unemployment going up about 20% of the total.
--Pursued money-printing policies that devalued the dollar.
--Created uncertainty and fear in business with Obamacare mandates and his indication that he will not extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy any longer.

That is just a cursory list. jimmac, no one expects "this" to be "fixed" overnight. No one expects Obama to work miracles. But have we even BEGUN to move in the right direction? I don't see how anyone who looks at the above facts can conclude we have. And that's only in the area of economic and fiscal policy. He's also started another war (with a fourth already underway in Yemen), hung Israel out to dry, refused to pursue energy independence, portrayed the US as weak while traveling abroad, and blatantly violated the War Powers Resolution. The only thing he's done well this far--and I mean the only thing, is kill bin Laden. And for that, he did an awesome job at taking all the credit. See below in comparison with the past President.

Excerpts from Bush's post-Saddam capture speech:

Excerpts from Obama's bin Laden speech:

Worst. President. Ever.

Quote:

Anyone that actually reads what I post knows I've criticized Bush many times for a variety of reasons. We've actually had this discussion--ABOUT those criticisms time and time again.

What????

Your lightweight almost apologetic criticisms?

And then you proceed to start threads blaming Obama for everything that's happened in the economy ( do really want me to quote the title? ).

Partisan drivel.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination